Image source: PixabayIn recent years, I’ve been bemoaning a new “dark age of macroeconomics”. I know less about current trends in micro, and thus was interested in these comments by Steven Levitt (from an interview by Jon Hartley):

Steve: “Yeah, yeah, sort of everywhere. Every macro department feels a lot like heavily influenced by Chicago. And I think for better or worse that has been a success story for the Chicago way of thinking. I think just really the opposite for Chicago micro; we have not had very many students who’ve gone out and been influential, maybe Ed Glaeser being a clear counter-example to that. And I think in the marketplace for ideas, I gotta say that the Chicago price theory really has lost. And it hasn’t caught people’s imagination. And I remember I was on a call with Milton Friedman as long after he left. He left Chicago in 1978, but this must have been 20-something years later where he was upset that Chicago price theory was not doing well, that it wasn’t being appreciated. And I remember Casey Mulligan saying, “Hey, Milton, I thought you believed in markets. Let’s just face it, price theory is losing in the market for ideas.” And Milton Friedman got so upset about that. He believed in markets until it applied to Chicago price theory where he thought that it was the right way, so markets shouldn’t have any bearing on it. But I think that’s just the truth. That the people who you think of as being the logical heirs to Chicago price theory, the two that come to mind really are Ed Glaeser and Jesse Shapiro, they’re not at Chicago. And with Kevin [Murphy] retiring, there isn’t, when Kevin Murphy retiring, there just isn’t anybody around now really, other than Casey Mulligan, who could really keep the torch going. And the movement in terms of textbooks and what people are taught is just so away from what I think of Chicago price theory, which is not as mathematical, it’s more about how you take the simple tools the very old tools you know tools that go back to people like Marshall and how you use them. It’s really the skill that I see in Chicago price theory (one that I don’t have) is how do you look at a problem and understand it to the lens of the right tool. And it’s not complicated. It’s usually very simple. Once you can see it, it’s usually not much more than intermediate micro is what gets applied. And it’s more artistic. And I really feel like our field has moved towards technicality. Harder proofs. More mathematical. And I don’t see any going back. I think it is essentially lost to posterity at this point.”

I find this very depressing. To me, Chicago price theory is not just a branch of economics, it is economics. It’s the core of what we know about applying economic theory to the real world. When I’m told that Chicago price theory is going out of style, it tells me that economics as a field is going out of style.And it is. Does anyone doubt that economists have far less influence in the Biden administration than in previous administrations? Or that they would have little influence in a future Trump administration (likely to be dominated by protectionists like Peter Navarro and Robert Lighthizer)?PS. I’m not convinced by the “market test”. Political and economic fads go in and out of style. What’s popular at one point in time tells us little or nothing about what will be trendy a few decades into the future. Monetarism lost the market test in the mid-20th century, then won the market test, and then by the end of the century we ended up with a synthesis of monetarist and Keynesian ideas.More By This Author:Powell Is Wrong About Inflation Two Definitions Of Bubbles Expect More Banking Turmoil